Trudy wrote:
>
>>Where it says that all laws made under the constitution by the
>Parliament shall be binding on the courts, judges...does this include
>the High Court?
Yes it does - and this is no different to the current situation. This is
why Howard was able introduce legislation that dimished the Wik decision.
Under our Westminster system, the parliament is supreme over all courts.
>Is this a Federal power grab away from the States or does it just appear
>that way?
Again, this is no different to the current situation. Federal law
ultimately over-rides State law.
Both aspects, however, go the heart of debates over sovereignty and rights
or what is often called the clash between Lockean and Dicean democracy
(named after Locke and Dicey). There's a great article in a recent edition
of The Federal Law Review by Harley Wright that canvasses both sides of the
argument in a fair amount of detail and in a way that even a legal-dult like
me could follow - can be found at
http://law.anu.edu.au/publications/flr/vol26no1/Wright.htm
Tim
>
>Trudy
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
